so did obama just screw our 2013 contract? (health care)

[klein]

Well, just watching CNN with all ther questions and answers about the new Healthcare Reform Bill.
Not good news for you UPS employees.

The money that UPS, (or any other employer), pays for your healthcare will now be calculated as taxable income.
That means, if you made $60.000 gross last year, your gross income will go up, by the equal amount UPS paid for your healthcare (lets say $7000).
Therefor your gross income is $67.000, which ofcourse you pay taxes on.

Basically, look out for smaller paychecks. I would assume about $50 less per week, if your average is $60K/yr.

And it will hit the part-timers even worse, I assume. Since , the addtional gross income, would make a big dent.

 

[toonertoo]

Thanks bro. Ya I talked to fxdwg on the side and he just misunderstood me. You got it right on. You probably share my same frustrations. Actually these are also the people Tieguy was talking about in this post or another I cant remember. He just for some reason got confused and got the UPS drivers on here confused w/ those people that are lazy.

I share frustration when I see people who worked all their lives who cant get help, but the guy who never worked a day in his life, gets carte-blanche.
I have helped several elderly people on my route get the meds they need through the drug companies. Thats about all I have done to help the struggling. I wish I had more time to help them.
I also think that a schooling of sorts should be required to get food stamps, like ......learn to cook. What nutrition means and how to get it, etc. If you are weighing 400 pounds you probably shouldnt be buying a cartfull of HO Hos, just little things that would make a difference in peoples lives. IE common sense, Oh wait never mind, that would never work.

 

[JonFrum]

Well, just watching CNN with all ther questions and answers about the new Healthcare Reform Bill.
Not good news for you UPS employees.

The money that UPS, (or any other employer), pays for your healthcare will now be calculated as taxable income.
That means, if you made $60.000 gross last year, your gross income will go up, by the equal amount UPS paid for your healthcare (lets say $7000).
Therefor your gross income is $67.000, which ofcourse you pay taxes on.

Basically, look out for smaller paychecks. I would assume about $50 less per week, if your average is $60K/yr.

And it will hit the part-timers even worse, I assume. Since , the addtional gross income, would make a big dent.

Are you sure about that???
- - - -
But if the day ever comes when our health benefits are taxable, I'm wondering how they will determine what our health benefit is worth.

In New England UPS contributes $7.86 per hour for all paid hours of all part-time and full-time bargaining unit members, up to a maximum of 40 hours per week. That's a maximum of $314 per week, or $16,354 per year for a typical full-timer.

This will rise to:
$17,082 on August 1, 2010
$17,810 on August 1, 2011
$18,538 on August 1, 2012.
[By the way, pension contributions are a few hundred dollars per year less than these figures.]

The hourly contribution rate is the same if you are single or married or have several children.

Part-timers in our particular fund (Locals 25 & 42) get "full-time" coverage if they work enough hours, or a lesser degree of coverage if they just work typical part-time hours. If they fall below that, they get no coverage at all.

So in effect, all of us with coverage are being subsidized by those who contribute but don't qualify for coverage. And those with covered dependants are being subsidized by those of us with fewer dependants, especially those of us who are single with no dependants.

There are also short-term employees who never work long enough to qualify for coverage, as well as New Hires that must wait months for coverage to begin.

Some people even "buy-in" using there own money because they didn't have enough hours.

So anyone know what formula they would use to calculate what our fund "costs" for "Single coverage" and "Family coverage?"

 

[Jones]

So anyone know what formula they would use to calculate what our fund "costs" for "Single coverage" and "Family coverage?"

They are supposed to start putting that information on our W2's next year, so they better figure it out by then.

 

[Lue C Fur]

Thanks bro. Ya I talked to fxdwg on the side and he just misunderstood me. You got it right on. You probably share my same frustrations. Actually these are also the people Tieguy was talking about in this post or another I cant remember. He just for some reason got confused and got the UPS drivers on here confused w/ those people that are lazy.

I share your fustrations also. I call them freeloaders. But remember its all about wealth distribution. Everyone should have what you have regardless if they are lasy freeloading leaches that have no intention of doing anything good for society.

I wish they would start drug testing all welfare recepiants.

 

[705red]

I share your fustrations also. I call them freeloaders. But remember its all about wealth distribution. Everyone should have what you have regardless if they are lasy freeloading leaches that have no intention of doing anything good for society.

I wish they would start drug testing all welfare recepiants.

So we can pay for rehab for them?

 

[Jones]

First you gotta pay for the drug testing, and that ain't cheap.

 

[1989]

Are you sure about that???
- - - -
But if the day ever comes when our health benefits are taxable, I'm wondering how they will determine what our health benefit is worth.

In New England UPS contributes $7.86 per hour for all paid hours of all part-time and full-time bargaining unit members, up to a maximum of 40 hours per week. That's a maximum of $314 per week, or $16,354 per year for a typical full-timer.

This will rise to:
$17,082 on August 1, 2010
$17,810 on August 1, 2011
$18,538 on August 1, 2012.
[By the way, pension contributions are a few hundred dollars per year less than these figures.]

The hourly contribution rate is the same if you are single or married or have several children.

Part-timers in our particular fund (Locals 25 & 42) get "full-time" coverage if they work enough hours, or a lesser degree of coverage if they just work typical part-time hours. If they fall below that, they get no coverage at all.

So in effect, all of us with coverage are being subsidized by those who contribute but don't qualify for coverage. And those with covered dependants are being subsidized by those of us with fewer dependants, especially those of us who are single with no dependants.

There are also short-term employees who never work long enough to qualify for coverage, as well as New Hires that must wait months for coverage to begin.

Some people even "buy-in" using there own money because they didn't have enough hours.

So anyone know what formula they would use to calculate what our fund "costs" for "Single coverage" and "Family coverage?"

They will probably have to report the actual monies paid in on your behalf on your w2.

 

[1989]

First you gotta pay for the drug testing, and that ain't cheap.

$2.50 a pop at the local juvenile parole office.

 

[JonFrum]

They are supposed to start putting that information on our W2's next year, so they better figure it out by then.

Where are you getting this? Do you have a link to the information?

 

[Jones]

$2.50 a pop at the local juvenile parole office.

It's quite a bit more than that.

 

[1989]

It's quite a bit more than that.

$39.99 at the local drug store.

 

[JonFrum]

They will probably have to report the actual monies paid in on your behalf on your w2.

So employees who don't qualify for coverage will have to pay taxes on nonexistant benefits based on the thousands of dollars contributed "on their behalf?"

Employees who work the minimum hours and weeks to qualify for coverage will pay less tax than the employee who works the full 40 hours and the full 52 weeks per year?

Single employees will pay tax as if they were married with one child?

And what about the spouse and kids? Are they exempt from being personally taxed?

 

[Jones]

$39.99 at the local drug store.

Now you're at least on the road to the ballpark.

• The average cost of a drug test is about $42 per person tested,[8] not including the costs of hiring personnel to administer the tests, to ensure confidentiality of results and to run confirmatory tests to guard against false positives resulting from passive drug exposure, cross-identification with legal, prescription drugs such as codeine and legal substances such as poppy seeds.
• Another way to measure the cost is by counting what it costs to “catch” each drug user. Drug testing is not used by many private employers because of the exorbitant cost of catching each person who tests positive. One electronics manufacturer, for example, estimated that the cost of finding each person who tested positive was $20,000, since after testing 10,000 employees, only 49 tested positive. A congressional committee also estimated that the cost of each positive drug test of government employees was $77,000, because the positive rate was only 0.5%.[9]

click

 

[Jones]

So employees who don't qualify for coverage will have to pay taxes on nonexistant benefits based on the thousands of dollars contributed "on their behalf?"

Employees who work the minimum hours and weeks to qualify for coverage will pay less tax than the employee who works the full 40 hours and the full 52 weeks per year?

Single employees will pay tax as if they were married with one child?

And what about the spouse and kids? Are they exempt from being personally taxed?

I think you are waaay jumping the gun here.

 

[JonFrum]

I think you are waaay jumping the gun here.

I agree.

My original point was that Klein is wrong when he says we will be paying personal income taxes on the cost of our health insurance. Then you said that employers will be reporting the cost on our W-2s. So I asked for a link.

The link you provided doesn't say we will be taxed, only that the value will be reported. I'm still not convinced that we will actually be paying personal income taxes on our health benefits.

The rest of my questions and comments was intended to illustrate what an unfair and complicated system it would create.

 

[Jones]

I agree.

My original point was that Klein is wrong when he says we will be paying personal income taxes on the cost of our health insurance. Then you said that employers will be reporting the cost on our W-2s. So I asked for a link.

The link you provided doesn't say we will be taxed, only that the value will be reported. I'm still not convinced that we will actually be paying personal income taxes on our health benefits.

The rest of my questions and comments was intended to illustrate what an unfair and complicated system it would create.

Yes, I would agree that we agree.
As much I enjoy Klein's posts, I think he misunderstands things sometimes .

 

[bbsam]

Hey Jones, my 4 year old loves your avatar.

 

[Jones]

Hey Jones, my 4 year old loves your avatar.

Wonderful boy you've got there

 

[1989]

I agree.

My original point was that Klein is wrong when he says we will be paying personal income taxes on the cost of our health insurance. Then you said that employers will be reporting the cost on our W-2s. So I asked for a link.

The link you provided doesn't say we will be taxed, only that the value will be reported. I'm still not convinced that we will actually be paying personal income taxes on our health benefits.

The rest of my questions and comments was intended to illustrate what an unfair and complicated system it would create.

If we will never have to pay a tax on beni's then what is the purpose of reporting it on a W2?